« EelmineJätka »
and to adjudge finally, or direct an issue, as the every creditor, every butcher or baker, the moment case may be. The 2d and 3d sections refer to the he has got a certain amount of debt gets a judgment, first section, and the 6th section, the proceedings and comes instantly to the Court of Chancery with under which the judge is empowered to carry out a petition for a receiver. The court has avoided according to the powers and authorities previously the difficulty of going on appointing receiver after given, is, for the purposes of the 2d & 3d sections, receiver, by extending the receiver. I have seen, to be incorporated in the first. The 3d section in cases where the court has extended the receiver, enacts, “ That if such third party (the claimant), page after page filled with the names of the different shall not appear upon such rule or order to maintain matters in which he has been extended. For inor relinquish, being duly served therewith ; or shall stance, originally it has been, “ A. B. petitioner
, neglect or refuse to comply with any rule or order and so and so respondent in the matter," and then to be made after appearance, he shall be barred the other judgment creditors who have got the from prosecuting his claim against the original de receiver extended follow in succession. fendant, &c.” The legitimate reading of the first 545. It is considerable ? — The expense of exsection appears to be, that stating the particulars tending a receiver is about £8, or something of of the claim, is of itself, either maintaining or re- that sort. I would observe that there is another linquishing; if the claimant's statement be, in the result of those numerous receivers which is very opinion of the judge, satisfactory, the claim is serious, inasmuch as it infringes upon the rights of maintained ; if the claimant can make no such satis- third persons ; when those receivers were not very factory statement, he must relinquish. What then common in the courts of equity the rule of the was the state of the facts in the case before us ? court did not operate injuriously; as soon as the The claimant himself, or through his attorney, was court has granted a receiver it will not allow any served with a rule under the 6th section, or the third person to interfere ; so that, supposing you court had no jurisdiction. He was bound “being have granted a lease for 100 years, and have a duly served therewith” by the third section (under rental of £400 or £500 a year from the estate, if the penalty of being barred) “ to appear upon such a party has a judgment against your tenant and gets rule to maintain or relinquish his claim ;" not only a receiver, the court will not allow you to distrain to appear, but in addition to maintain or relinquish. the tenant for your own rent, or bring an ejectThe claimant did appear, but having, in the opinion ment if he will not pay it; if the landlord comes of the judge, failed to maintain, he abandoned or into court in order to obtain permission to distrain, relinquished his claim, and was, therefore, barred. it will give him leave to distrain, but then the
This construction would, on the ground of con- court makes him pay his own costs. What tbe venience also, seem to be best, as the claimant hav- court intended to do was to prevent any unnecesing appeared, and disobeyed no order of the court sary proceedings being taken, and there was no great made after appearance, in the opinion of Mr. Justice grievance when receivers were granted with delibeMaule the only penalty would be being mulcted in ration, and in suits; but when every tradesman can costs; and an action against the sheriff or execution get a judgment for a debt, and the next morning creditor would help to compensate him for the loss apply to the Chancellor for a receiver, and the reof the costs of a motion.
ceivers are multiplied as they now are, the rule is a very great deprivation of the rights of property,
and operates most injuriously. HOUSE OF COMMONS.
546. The receiver in Ireland is only looked to as RECEIVER COMMITTEE.
the man who can get the greatest amount of rent
from the tenants? Yes. Sir Edward B. Sugden, June 21, 1849.
547. Without reference to the improvement in (Continued from p. 316.)
the mode of agriculture?-Yes, it must be so; in 471. In point of fact, the ownership of the estate Ireland the creditor wants his debt, and nothing has passed from the original owner, the debtor, to less will he have; but that is not confined to Ireland. the judgment creditor ? —No doubt ; and one of 575. Mr. Keogh.] With reference to the inthe greatest mischiefs of judgments in Ireland has mense extent to which receivers are continued from been, that the owner of an estate has gone on in-one matter to another, are you aware that the costs sensibly increasing the incumbrances on his pro- of appointing a receiver are paid out of the estate perty. He is regarded as the ostensible owner of in the first instance, though the motion should be an estate of £9,000 or £10,000 a year, when he made by a person who never had an interest in the has not more than £200 or £300 a year interest property ?-Yes. in the property, and he cannot accommodate him 576. Are you aware that that has induced some self, no man can, to that state of things. He repre- persons to apply for the appointment of receivers sents an ancient family, possessed of a fine estate, over property where they never expected to realise and he is necessarily driven into expenses which he their demand? I am not aware of it, but I think it would not incur if he had not that estate, and yet very probable. he has no substantial interest in it.
577. Do you think it would contribute to the 543. Mr. R. B. Osborne.] Are you aware proper appointment of receivers if the cost of their whether the greater proportion of the receivers appointment were reserved in the same way as the that have been appointed, have been appointed for demand?-I think it would. small or for large debts ?-I should apprehend 578. As regards the multiplicity of suits, a nunthat till the late Acts had come into operation they ber of creditors' suits may be going on at the same would be for large debts ; but since those Acts, I time till a decree is pronounced; one creditor files his
bill and then another creditor, for the purpose of 586. With respect to appointing receivers, you accumulating costs, goes into the office and takes a would alter the law ?_Yes ; judgment creditors copy of that and files it on his own account. Has would then have the same rights as a judgment crethe court power to stop those suits till the decree is ditor has in England. pronounced?—The court has usually not exercised 587. Would you make the judgment assignable? that power, because you can never be sure that the -I think that the power to assign should not be party who has instituted a suit will go on with it. taken away in Ireland.
579. Do you think it would be possible to pre 588. The only alteration you would propose is vent a multiplicity of suits at the same time?—Yes. with respect to the appointment of receivers for sums
580. It would greatly contribute, if it could be below a certain amount?— Yes, and that no receiver done, to save the estate from costs ?-It would. should be appointed at all till within a certain period
581. Sir J. Graham.] I apprehend from the for- after the judgment has been obtained, say a year mer part of your evidence that you would not think or some such period; I would not allow a judg, it desirable to alter the law with reference to judgment to be snatched and a receiver to be appointed ments as affecting the whole property of the debtor? instantly; I should look to England as the country --No. I think general public opinion is in favour in which charges on real property are properly reof that law, the Legislature having taken away the gulated, and I should like to see Ireland placed on right of arrest upon mesne process.
the same basis ; it is utterly inconsistent with the 582. It has been suggested to the committee that prosperity of the country that there should be so prospectively it would be desirable to make the judg- many judgments upon the property and so many ment apply only to a particular portion of the pro- receivers. perty? That would be very difficult.
589. Sir R. Peel.] Supposing the case of a cre583. To black-acre for instance? - That cannot ditor dealing with an improvident young man, and be from the nature of the proceeding; but the court that young man wanted to raise £200, and that for has been in the habit of putting a receiver upon a £200 a receiver could not be appointed, might not portion of the estate to pay a particular judgment the effect of such a restriction be that the creditor which comes to the same point.
would say, “ Though you only want £200, borrow 584. Sir R. Peel.] Is not the power of making £500 from me, because by lending you £500 I shall the whole of an estate responsible for a judgment have the security of a receiver ?”—No doubt that debt a great encouragment to improvidence and might be done, and I am not aware of anything that extravagance?-I think so; I have never had the you could do that is not open to abuse. least doubt about it; and particularly operating as 590. In that case there would be a temptation to it does in Ireland, where a judgment creditor can the young man to borrow money that was not absoget a receiver instantly; if a man could only get judg- lutely required, and thereby to involve himself in ment as in England, and then he had to work it out, greater embarrassments ?-Numbers of those judghe would not in that case be so anxious to obtain a ments are not for borrowed money; they are for judgment. Supposing a party did not pay his but ordinary debts, contracted in the course of a man's cher's bill, the butcher would wait as a tradesman living, with his tradesmen, one after the other, and does in England, till the party were able to pay his a person to whom he is debtor obtains a judgment; bill, instead of which now he gets a judgment, and they have nothing to do with contracts, beyond the then a receiver, and the attorney gets his costs, and actual contracting of the debt by purchasing the that proceeding of obtaining a receiver may never goods. produce a single farthing to the man; but it is a 591. Would not the same case occur with a great encouragement to extravagance and impro- tradesman who would say to the young man,
My vidence, and also to giving undue credit; the evils debt amounts to £400; run it up to £500 and I are universal almost.
shall have the benefit of a receiver ?"- It does not 585. Sir J. Graham.] You have stated that you appear to me that that is an objection to the thing. bave no hesitation as to the propriety of appointing It may happen, as it happens at College, while a receivers generally speaking, in cases above £100; man goes on increasing his debts they never press if you raised the limit to £500 you would impose him, but the moment he leaves off spending, then a stronger check, and so on in the proportion in they press him. You cannot guard against a case which you fixed the minimum bigh? -No doubt, of that sort. but I should not propose to take away the operation 592. Sir J. Graham.] Are not receivers appointed of a judgment at all; I think such a step would be very often for debts under £10?_Yes. very badly received in Ireland; and I think it of 593. You must draw the line somewhere if you great importance that any alteration made in the law strike at the abuse at all ?-Yes ; there would be should carry with it the feeling generally of the cases such as Sir Robert Peel puts, in which there people, and that you should not do anything which would be evasion in order to get within the rule, is adverse to their own sense of what is due to them; whatever the rule is ; you can have no rule that and they have so long considered judgments as the would not be evaded, but its general leading operacommon assurance of the country, that they would tion would be useful. A man would, I think, not consider it very hard if you took away the operation advance more money in the case Sir Robert Peel of judgments; but nobody would have a right to put in order to obtain a receiver upon petition ; or complain of your altering an Act of Parliament if so, it would probably be an unfair transaction, which was passed only the other day, and which which the Court of Chancery could correct. gave creditors rights in addition to the rights they 594. The public good appears to you to demand had under the old law.
the alterations of the law which you have suggested,
The property was
and those alterations are the mildest that you think property over which the receiver is appointed is very are indispensable?-Yes.
inconsiderable. I can give two examples, which 595. Time may show that rather stronger mea- occurred before me in the present sittings. In one sures are necessary? Yes.
case, (and I have brought over a copy of the peti. 596. But you recommend the alterations which tion for the Committee, there was an application you have suggested to be tried in the first instance? to extend the receiver, and if you add the costs at -Yes; and if I found the evil was not cured by law and the costs in equity, the debt being £5 8 them, it would be time to see whether you would you find a most enormous disproportion between the strike at the receiver on petitions, or leave every debt and the costs. The judgment was for more thing as it stood. The Sheriff's Act not only ex- than £5, because it included the costs at law; but tended this remedy over the whole estate, but gave the petition stated that the debt was £5 8s. The extraordinary power besides.
other case was an application to continue the pro
. 597. Sir R. Peel] Anticipating for the sake of ceedings under the provisions of Sir M. O'Loghlen's argument a failure of the measures which you now act, which, by the death of one of the parties, it suggest, can you state what are the other measures became necessary to continue. which you would in that case suggest?-No, I have £10 a-year; and I need scarcely say that appoint
. not thought of anything beyond; I should like to see ing a receiver, either with respect to a debt of only what the evil was before I addressed myself to the £5, which was one of the cases which was moved consideration of what would or would not be the before me this term, or with respect to property cure.
worth £10 a-year, must work most oppressively
. 598. Sir J. Graham.] You have mentioned inci 947. Sir R. Peel.] Can you give the whole "his. dentally what would be a stronger measure, namely, tory of the £5 case?-I directed the registrar to the abolition in all cases of receivers on petition?- give me a copy of the proceedings in that case
which I have brought with me. It may be right
, 599. But you would not think it wise to go that however, to say, in justification of the petitioner
, length at once?-No; I should think it would be that he had thought it right, on account of the suell too strong a measure.
amount, to resort in the first instance to another Right Hon. T. B. C. Smith.-June 28.
mode of recovering the debt, and had failed in that
but I only give the case as au example; and I got 945. Will you state to the Committee what you the registrar at the same time to furnish me with think the prominent evils connected with the system what he believed would be the costs in equity of er. of the management of estates under creditors
' retending the receiver. Now, in these cases it is very ceivers ? -_- The mode in which the receiver is ap- difficult, considering the very small remuneration pointed is this: an order of reference is made to which the receiver obtains, to get proper persons to the Master to appoint a receiver, either upon a de- be receivers. But the second cause which leads to cree or upon motion in a cause, or upon petition improper persons being appointed receivers over under some of the statutes in force in Ireland; when property, and which applies to every class of prothe order is made, the solicitor who has the carriage perty, is, that the solicitor for the petitioner or plainof the proceedings, who is usually the solicitor for tiff has, in my opinion, a direct interest in nominatthe plaintiff or petitioner, lodges an attested copying an unfit person. of the decree or order in the Master's office, to
948. Will you explain to the Committee in what whom the reference is made, and a summons is manner the solicitor would have an interest in net issued for some particular day, as I understand, and having a fit and proper person appointed receiver the Master directs who shall get notice of the pro-If he was to appoint a completely independent ceedings; however, practically, as I understand, person, in all probability he would have no legal the solicitor for the plaintiff or petitioner is the only profit on the transaction; that independent person person who attends. I am speaking now of the so appointed would either select his own solicitor, majority of cases ; he proposes to the Master some or would endeavour to manage the property in such person to be appointed receiver, and I believe it a manner as to incur as little legal expense as poswould appear, if returns were called for, that in the sible; whereas the plaintiff's solicitor has a direct vast majority of cases the person so proposed as re- interest in appointing some person who will be a ceiver is the person appointed. I think that system complete tool in his hands. has led to most injurious results, and I think it has
957. Have you traced the origin of the law of led to the appointment of a very improper class of judgments in Ireland as contradistinguished fronu the persons as receivers. 946. The multiplication of receivers so selected law of judgments in England to any connexion with
the penal laws of Ireland ?--My attention has not must act very injuriously upon the general interests been called to that. I think there was a case relatof the country? -- I think so. It would be well that ing to that point before Lord Redesdale
, which is I should explain to the Committee why it is that, in reported in Schoales and Lefroy, I speak from memy opinion, improper persons are appointed as re- mory,
the popery laws not having been in force ceivers. In the first place, it frequently happens since I was called to the bar. I believe judgments that in petitions under Sir Michael O'Loghlen's act, obtained by Roman Catholics were not within the and Mr. Pigot's act, the judgment is for a very in
popery laws, save that the amount could not be reconsiderable amount; if that be so, of course the covered by elegit; but I wish it to be understood receiver is appointed over a very small portion of that I am speaking from a vagne recollection. the property; but it sometimes happens, without
958. The penal laws in Ireland affected the title regard to the amount due on the judgment, that the
of land as enjoyed by Roman Catholics? -No doubt could have been made available. Sir Michael
O’Loghlen at the Rolls gave a more extended con$59. But judgments, when held by Roman Castruction to the act, and considered that it author. tholics
, were an available security to their full ex- ised the appointment of receivers over an equity tent without regard to creed?-I do not know that, of redemption, or over terms for years. He so exI shall look in the House of Lord's Library, at the pressed his opinion ; and the effect of the amendrising of the Committee to-day, for the case I have ment of Sir Michael O'Loghlen's act by Mr. Pigot's mentioned ; [see O'Fallon y. Dillon, (2 Schoales & act, was in fact to extend the remedy under Sir Lefroy, 21,) and Read v. Aylmer, (Howard's Popery Michael O'Loghlen's act to those cases in which Cases, 80,) ] but as this question has never arisen the Court of Exchequer had given a limited consince I was called to the bar I am not familiar with struction to the statute. it.
970. Then the conjoint effect of those acts has 961. Do you believe that the effect of the conjoint been to render a much larger surface of the whole operation of Sir Michael O’Loghlen's act and Mr. of Ireland liable to management under the Court ? Pigot's act has been advantageous or not?- That is -Certainly. a difficult question to answer; they have produced 971. And you have already said, that with reevil effects, no doubt; but Sir Michael O'Loghlen's spect to the appointment of receivers, the system act was introduced with a view to remedy a greater is not satisfactory, in your opinion ?—It is not. evil
. If the Committee would wish to know the 972. Therefore if the evils of the appointment of cause of the introduction of Sir Michael O’Loghlen's receivers remain unchanged, the effect must be act I think I can refer them to a document which very injurious to the cultivation and the manageexplains it. I cannot give the exact date of the re- ment of property in Ireland ?-I think it must. port
, but several years ago there was a commission 985. As relates to the public good, the effect of to certain gentlemen to inquire into the proceedings judgments remaining unchanged in Ireland, and of courts of justice in Ireland. One of their reports ihe power of appointing receivers still remaining related to the mode of levying the amount of a unchanged, would there not be an advantage to the judgment by a custodiam proceeding and outlawry, public in having only one jurisdiction by which rebut the remedy by outlawry and custodiam was so ceivers could be appointed ?-I think so; if the oppressive that I believe it was that circumstance Court of Chancery was capable of doing the whole which induced Sir Michael O’Loghlen to bring in equity business of the country, it would be better his measure.
to have only one equity jurisdiction. I had returns 964. Do you think that giving the right on the made to myself of the business done at the Rolls part of the judgment creditor to obtain the appoint- in the last nine or ten years ; I could not lay my ment of a receiver, considering the extent to which hands upon the returns previous to the last two that right has been pushed, has been advantageous years, but I have the latter with me, and when I or otherwise ?-I should say that it has been dis- rise from the present sittings, the number of orders advantageous in this way. I am quite sure that which I shall have made for one year from the first there are a greater number of judgments affecting day of Michaelmas Term, will be about 4,700, and land in Ireland now, than there would have been if the number in Sir Michael O'Loghlen's time did Sir Michael O’Loghlen's act had never passed. not, I believe, amount in any one year to 3,000.
965 Has the power of judgments, as affecting 990. Since the passing of Mr. Pigot's act, tenants all property in the possession of the debtor, or to under long leases may obtain loans upon judgments, be acquired by the debtor, been enlarged to that with all the law of judgments affecting those long extent by recent enactment ?_Yes; Mr. Pigot's leases ?—No doubt they may. act introduced a clause independent of the clause 991. Do you think that it is politic in the present which was contained in Sir Michael O'Loghlen's circumstances of Ireland, to extend the leasing act, and the clause which was so introduced into power of tenants for life ? That is a very large Mr. Pigot's act, irrespective of Sir Michael O'Logh- question, which I do not know that I have consilen's act, was in fact copied from a recent act re- dered very much. lating to England; the clause which authorises you 992. But it has a bearing upon the question of to take the entire of the land of a debtor under an judgments and receivers: for as you extend the elegit instead of a moiety was copied from a clause leasing power, you extend also the liability of the in the English act.
property so leased to judgments, with the appoint969. Then the extended effect of judgments in ment of receivers ; do you not ?-Of course all Ireland under Mr. Pigot's act, as contrasted with leasehold property is subject to the operation of England, has arisen from the circumstance of the Sir Michael O'Loghlen's act. power of appointing receivers existing in Ireland ? 993. By splitting the reversion, and by multiply-- Yes; Sir Michael O'Loghlen's act gave for the ing middlemen, you subject the same farm, the same first time the power of appointing receivers to the corpus, to various judgments, and with various petitioner who either had sued out an elegit, or was judgments to the appointment of different receivers entitled to sue out an elegit, and the receiver was over it ? ---No doubt; and there are cases in which not to be over the moiety, but over the entirety if there is a receiver over the middleman's interest necessary. There was a conflict of decision upon and over the landlord's interest at the same time. the construction of that act, between the Court of 994. As you multiply leases, and as you split Chancery and the Court of Exchequer; the Court the reversion, under the operation Mr. Pigot's act of Exchequer applying a strict construction, and and the Sheriffs' act conjointly, you render more only appointing a receiver in cases where the elegit' and more of the property of Ireland subject to the
effect of judgments, and to the consequent appoint- to judgments in Ireland being no longer asignment of receivers ?-I think you do.
able?-_I read it hastily. 995. Then if that be an evil, has it not been the
(To be continued.) tendency of legislation to increase and aggravate the evil?--Certainly. If you authorise a tenant
CHANCERY. for life to make long leases, there is no doubt that that leasehold interest becomes subject to a receiver; John Bowen, the younger,
Walter Humphreys, Plaintift
. > PURSUANT to the Deeree but I feel some difficulty in stating how that ex and others, Defendants
10th day of May, 1819, 1 hereby require actly bears upon the consideration of the question. brances affecting the Annuity of £300 per annum, and the other
996. If you were to increase the power of the pleadings mentioned, to come in before me, at my Chambers, Inne porte tenant for life to grant leases, would it not be poli-Canye Deubling the cow before the end day of October neat, and more
same, otherwise they prechuded the tic, conjointly with that power so about to be granted,
Dated this 4th day of August, 1819, to look at the operation of Mr. Pigot's act and the GEORGE BEAMISH, Solicitor for the Plaintiff,
No. 38, Lower Gardiner Street, Dublin. Sheriffs' act, with the view of checking the obtain ing of judgments and receivers as affecting property of small amounts ?-I think it might. I think my
ADDISON ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS, self that it was very questionable whether subjecting terms for years to judgments was a beneficial A TABELADISE on the Law of CONTRACTS, and Rights alteration of the law.
Inner Temple, Barrister.at-Law, Second Edition, 2 vols. 8vo, price £ 180 997. Looking at the present state of Ireland,
RUSSELL ON ARBITRATION. with judgments the common assurance of the coun
TREATISE on the Power and Duty of an ARBI.
TRATOR, and the Law of Submissions and Awards; with an try, and the extended use which is now made of Appendix of Forms and of the Statutes relating to Arbitratie. By that mode of obtaining credit, would you think it FRANCIS RUSSELL, Esq., M.A., Barrister.at. Law. I were there, but prudent at once prospectively to put an end to
BAYLEY ON BILLS OF EXCHANGE. judgments with the power of appointing receivers ? SUMMARY of the Law of Bills of Exchange, Cash Bils, - That is a question of very great difficulty. I Edition, by G. W.'DOWDESWELL, Barrister-at-Law. I vel torta apprehend that you must give the judgment cre
BURGE ON THE LAW OF SURETYSHIP. ditor some remedy against the land ; but the great | COMMENTARIES on the Law of SURETYSHIP
, and difficulty of dealing with the question, is to determine which is the least oppressive mode of levying BURGE, Esq. & C. M.A. &c. 1 vol. 8vo. 18s. the debt out of the land. The oppression which
STANFIELD'S PRECEDENTS IN CONVEYANCING outlawry proceedings led to, and which was the A COLLECTION of Copyhold PRECEDENTS IN origin of Sir Michael O'Loghlen's act, is detailed gether with Introductory Treatises upon the various transactions and very clearly in the report to which I have referred. STANFIELD, Esq. 1 vol. 8vo. 128. If you were to repeal both the statutes, no doubt it UESTIONS FOR LAW STUDENTS on the Second would get property out of Chancery to a certain
Edition of Mr. Serjeant Stephen's New Commentaries on the Lan
of England. By JAMES STEPHEN, Esq. of the Middle Temple, Ber. extent, or rather it would prevent property getting rister at. Law. 1 vol. 8vo, cloth boards, price 103. 6d. into the Court of Chancery, but you would stili CONCISE FOK MSZOFARMALS withPractical Notes. leave the debtor open to a proceeding by elegit ; and it is right that the Committee should understand THE LAW OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. A Treatise that the proceeding by elegit will of necessity lead upon Roper's Treatise, and comprising Jacobs' Notes and additions therea to difficulty. I shall endeavour to explain how
an Boya BOWRIGON TESO: of the Inner Temple, Barrister.t.Law, s vela elegit proceeding would lead to difficulty. Suppose A TREATISE ON THE RAPERO ELEGACIES, B. there is a tenant in possession of lands and a judg. Gray hinn; and by H. H. WHITE, Esq., Barrister.at. Law of the MA ment against his landlord, if his lease bears date die Temple Fourth Edition. 2 vols, royal svo. £3 3a, boarde. subsequent to the date of the judgment, the creditor A TREATISE ON THE LAW.OF EVIDENCE, . may issue an elegit ; he may have an inquisition in
American and other Foreign Laws By JOHN PITI TAYLOR, ES, the ordinary way, and a finding upon that; and of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at.Law. 2 vols, royal 8vo. La 10. upon that inquisition he may serve, an ejectment A SELECTION OF LEADING CASES LIN Various on the tenant, and turn the tenant out of posses- Esg.. or the Inner Temple Barrister.at. Law. Third Edition BHX sion altogether. If the judgment is subsequent to KEATING, Esq, and JAMES S. WILLES, Esq., of the Inper People
Barristers at Law. 2 vols, royal 8vo. £2 126,6d. the date of the lease, he cannot turn the tenant out EDWARD J. MILLIKEN, LAW BOOKSELLER AND of possession, but the judgment creditor, by the
PU_LISHER, 15, COLLEGE GREEN, DUBLIN. operation of the inquisition, is regarded as in the nature of the assignee of the reversion ; he stands
All communications for the IRISH JURIST are to be left, addressed
to the Editor, with the Publisher, E. J. MILLIKEN, 15, COLLEGE in the shoes of the landlord-and the difficulty is GREEN. Correspondents will please give the Name and Adores, as the this: one judgment creditor having proceeded and communication nor will the Editor be accountable for the return of attached the rent, may be dispossessed by a prior Manuscripts, &c. judgment creditor, and that prior judgment creditor
Orders for the IRISH JURIST left with E. J, MILLIKEN, 14, COL. may be dispossessed by another prior judgment LEGE OREEN, or by letter (post-paid), will ensure its puncturehelinger creditor ; and in this way the unfortunate tenant in publication.
, or its Post, on the day di possession may suffer very nearly as much by that TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION-(payable in advance): elegit proceeding as he suffers at present by a pro Yearly, 30s. Half-yearly, 178. ceeding by a receiver ; the difficulty is, whichever way you turn it is only a choice of evils.
Printed by THOMAS ISAAC WHITE, at his Printing Office, No. 4, 1002. Sir J.Graham.] Have you seen the bill that COLLEGE GREEN, in same Parish, by EDWARD JOHNSTON has been introduced by the government with respect to be di residente de the ligne place on being in the County of the